January 27, 2013
Glooscap Heritage Society v. The Queen - FCA refuses applic. to delay revocation of charity status
In the case of Glooscap Heritage Society v. The Queen, a charity had its charitable status revoked for improperly issuing tax receipts and operating for the benefit of a tax shelter. The Charity filed an objection to the revocation and applied for an order delaying the revocation until their challenge was heard but this objection was ultimately dismissed. The Court acknowledged that “Glooscap’s activities are socially worthy and important to the community” but the Court noted that “Glooscap’s involvement with the tax shelter is central.” There is a very important discussion about the issue of reputation. There is also an interesting recognition by the FCA on the subject of “the regrettable, often abysmal, sometimes unspeakable events surrounding Canada’s history of aboriginal/non-aboriginal relations: Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Backward, vol. 1 (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group Publishing, 1996)”. In this case the Court noted that Glooscap issued $19,775 in total donations during 2007-2011 that were not related to the tax scheme but issued $116 million in tax receipts related to the scheme.
In the decision, the court stated:
“ In order to delay the revocation, Glooscap must satisfy the Court that it has met the normal test for the granting of stays and injunctions: International Charity Association Network v. Minister of National Revenue, 2008 FCA 114 at paragraph 5. Glooscap must show it has an arguable case against the revocation, it will suffer irreparable harm if the revocation is allowed to happen, and the balance of convenience lies in its favour: RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 311.
 For the reasons set out below, Glooscap has not satisfied this test. Therefore, I shall dismiss Glooscap’s application to delay the revocation of its registration as a charity, with costs.”
The FCA then goes on to talk about the low threshold for the first step of the test, ‘arguable case’, and the Minister conceded and the Court concluded that the charity met this part of the test.
However, to meet the second part of the test, ‘irreparable harm’, there must be evidence that the unavoidable irreparable harm would result unless the stay was granted. In this case, it was accepted that the charity would suffer some reputational harm however most of it was caused by the actions of the charity by being associated with a tax shelter, not the revocation of the charity’s status. The charity knew that they could lose their charitable status if they became involved with a tax shelter yet they still chose to continue with these actions. The Court stated (my highlighting):
“ Glooscap has adduced evidence from very well-placed deponents: the executive director of the tourist association with which Glooscap is partnered, a multi-decade councillor with the Millbrook First Nation reserve, and the general manager of the museum. However, much of the evidence of harm given by these deponents consists of sweeping, unparticularized assertions and declarations that difficulties would arise that might result in actual harm.
 Without a better understanding of Glooscap’s overall financial situation and fundraising ability, I cannot conclude that a loss of donations would result in any irreparable harm to it or its activities.
 Glooscap submits that revocation of its registration as a charity will cause harm to its relationships, particularly with non-aboriginal organizations, and these injuries are not capable of later remediation. However, its evidence goes no higher than to identify “jeopardy” or a risk to those relationships: see paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Mingo Affidavit.
 The Court does accept that Glooscap will suffer some reputational harm. However, as explained below, much of the reputational harm, especially in the donor community, will be caused not by the revocation of Glooscap’s registration as a charity, but rather by the reassessment of the donors to the tax shelter.
 Ultimately fatal to Glooscap`s application is the requirement that it establish irreparable harm that is unavoidable, i.e., irreparable harm that will be caused by the failure to get a stay, not harm caused by its own conduct in running a clearly-known risk that it actually knew about, could have avoided, but deliberately chose to accept: Dywidag Systems International, supra at paragraphs 14 and 16.”
“ In this case, Glooscap knew about the sizeable advantages of registered charitable status: exemption from income tax and the ability to issue receipts for donations received. It was warned at an early stage that it might lose its advantageous charitable status if it associated with this tax shelter. Part of that risk is the very thing that has now materialized – the revocation of its charitable status before it can challenge the revocation in this Court. Warnings about involvement with this tax shelter came from the Canada Revenue Agency (two emails and a meeting), Glooscap’s own lawyer (two letters) and its own auditor. Glooscap’s auditor resigned, at least in part over the issue. There were also warnings that involvement in the tax shelter would require an amendment to Glooscap’s objects and the approval of the Canada Revenue Agency. Yet, knowing of the risks, Glooscap chose to continue its association with the tax shelter, and in fact renewed its association in 2009.
 Glooscap submits that it exercised good faith throughout. In support of that submission, among other things, Glooscap points to confirmatory testimony given on cross-examination of a representative of the Canada Revenue Agency. That may be so, but the fact remains that at an early stage Glooscap knew of the risk of the very harm that has eventuated here and it chose to run that risk.
 If Glooscap blundered itself into involvement in this tax shelter, oblivious to any real risk, the irreparable harm might not be fairly laid at its feet. Similarly, circumstances such as mistaken advice, mistake as to the facts, trickery, duress or unauthorized conduct by someone wrongly purporting to act for Glooscap might cause a different view to be taken of the matter. But in this case none of these circumstances are present.”
As the irreparable harm part of the test was not met the court did not go into detail on the third part “balance of convenience”. The Court just noted: “ Were it necessary to proceed to this branch of the test, this Court would have found that the balance of convenience lies against the granting of relief to Glooscap.”
The Court noted:
 This Court recognizes the high significance and importance of the aboriginal/non-aboriginal partnership in this case between Glooscap and the tourist association, especially when viewed against the regrettable, often abysmal, sometimes unspeakable events surrounding Canada’s history of aboriginal/non-aboriginal relations: Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Backward, vol. 1 (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group Publishing, 1996).
The Court discussed the issue of what is in the “public interest”. I find this part to be fascinating:
“ The weight to be accorded to that public interest, already significant, is driven upward by the sizeable amounts said to be in issue in this case: $116,999,482 given in receipts to participants in the tax shelter in 2008-2011, in circumstances where valid non-tax shelter donations over the same period totalled only $19,775. It is also driven up by Glooscap’s decision to involve itself in the tax shelter despite the clear warnings it received.
 In assessing and weighing the public interest considerations in this case against the considerations offered by Glooscap, I can do no better than to adopt the words of my colleague, Sharlow J.A., in International Charity Association Network, supra at paragraph 12 (2008 FCA 62):
The Minister takes the position, properly in my view, that the public has a legitimate interest in the integrity of the charitable sector. It is reasonable for the Minister to attempt to safeguard that integrity by carefully scrutinizing tax shelter schemes involving charitable donations of property and, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property has been overvalued, by taking appropriate corrective action. In the circumstances of this case, the Minister’s factual allegations, while untested, are sufficiently serious to outweigh any advantage [the charity] might derive from an order deferring the revocation of its registration as a charity.”
The Court ultimately decided:
“For the foregoing reasons, I shall dismiss Glooscap’s application to delay the revocation of its registration as a charity. The Minister shall have his costs of the application.”
January 26, 2013
CRA releases new T3010 (13) for registered charities with fiscal year ends after January 1, 2013
The Charities Directorate has released a new T3010 (13) Registered Charity Information Return for Canadian registered charities with fiscal year ends after January 1, 2013. The changes on the T3010 (13) are basically more questions about the political activities of Canadian charities as a result of the 2012 Federal Budget. Canadian charities will need to answer more questions on political activities in Section C5; and fill out a new Schedule 7, Political Activities. If your fiscal year end is in 2012 then use the old T3010-1 - otherwise, for those with fiscal year ends after January 1, 2013 use the new T3010 (13). As pointed out to me by Steven Ayer of Common Good Strategies there are also an additional question on receipted foreign funds, more country codes and other small changes.
Here is a copy of the new form: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t3010/t3010-13e.pdf
Here is the revised guide: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4033/README.html or http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4033/t4033-13e.pdf
Here is a larger font PDF of the T3010 (13) Guide: Completing_the_Registered_Charity_Information_Return_t4033_Rev_13_-_large_font.pdf
In 2012, new legislative measures were introduced that affect registered charities. These measures require registered charities to give more details about their political activities.
Changes to Form T3010(13), Registered Charity Information Return
Charities carrying out political activities must:
• answer additional questions at Section C5; and
• fill out Schedule 7, Political activities, if applicable.
Changes to Form T1236, Qualified Donees Worksheet / Amounts Provided to Other Organizations
Charities that gift to other organizations must report the amount of the gift that was intended for political activities.
All charities must fill out Form T1235, Directors/Trustees and Like Officials Worksheet. Charities subject to the Ontario Corporations Act must now fill out Forms T1235 and RC232 WS, Ontario Corporations Act Information Act Annual Return.
We have updated the instructions on Form T1235 and Form T1236.”
Here are some of the new questions on the T3010
C5 Political Activities
A registered charity may pursue political activities only if the activities are non-partisan, related to its charitable purposes, and limited in extent. A political activity is any activity that explicitly communicates to the public that a law, policy or decision of any level of government inside or outside Canada should be retained, opposed, or changed.
(a) Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period, including making gifts to qualified donees that were intended for political activities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
If yes, you must complete Schedule 7, Political Activities.
(b) Total amount spent by the charity on these political activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5030 $
(c) Of the amount at line 5030, the total amount of gifts made to qualified donees. 5031 $
(d) Total amount received from outside Canada that was directed to be spent on political activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5032 $ If you entered an amount on line 5032 you must complete Schedule 7, Political Activities, Table 3.
Political activities Schedule 7
A registered charity may pursue political activities only if the activities are non-partisan, related to its charitable purposes, and limited in extent. A political
activity is any activity that explicitly communicates to the public that a law, policy or decision of any level of government inside or outside Canada should be
retained, opposed, or changed.
1 Describe the charity’s political activities, including gifts to qualified donees intended for political activities, and explain how these relate to its charitable purposes.
2 Identify the way the charity participated in or carried out political activities during the fiscal period.
Tick all the boxes that apply
Staff Volunteers Financial Property
Media releases and advertisements 700
Conferences, workshops, speeches, or lectures 701
Publications (printed or electronic) 702
Rallies, demonstrations, or public meetings 703
Petitions, boycotts (calls to action) 704
Letter writing campaign (printed or electronic) 705
Internet (Web site, social media (Twitter, YouTube)) 706
Gifts to qualified donees for political activities 707
Other (specify): 708
Funding from outside of Canada for political activities
3 If the charity entered an amount on line 5032, complete the fields below. Enter the political activity that the funds were intended to support, the amount
received from each country outside Canada, and the corresponding country code (using the codes provided in Schedule 2.) For more information on how
to complete this table, see Guide T4033 (13).
Political activity Amount Code”
The section of guide dealing with C5 political question was updated:
“C5 – Political activities – While a registered charity may not be established for a political purpose, it may choose to advance its charitable purposes by taking part in political activities under certain conditions.
A registered charity may pursue political activities if they are:
1. non-partisan in nature. A charity must not directly or indirectly support or oppose a political party or candidate for public office. For example, a registered charity cannot purchase tickets (or reimburse its employees for the expense of purchasing tickets) to a fundraising event held by a political party;
2. connected directly to the charity’s purposes. A charity is only permitted to devote its resources to political activities about an issue, policy, or law that is connected to its charitable purposes. For example, a registered charity established for the purpose of wildlife conservation could not engage in political activities related to prison reform;
3. subordinate to the charity’s purposes. A charity can only engage in political activities provided it has satisfied the requirement that it devote substantially all its resources to charitable activities. Generally a registered charity may devote no more than 10% of its resources to political activities.
We consider an activity to be political if a charity:
1. explicitly makes a call for political action (for example, encourages the public to contact an elected representative or public official and urge them to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country);
2. explicitly communicates to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained (if the retention of the law, policy, or decision is being reconsidered by a government), opposed, or changed; or
3. explicitly indicates in its materials (whether internal or external) that the intention of the activity is to incite, or to put pressure on, an elected representative or public official to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.
As of June 29, 2012, a political activity includes the making of gifts to qualified donees intended for political activities. Under the new rule, when a registered charity makes a gift to a qualified donee and it can reasonably be considered that a purpose of the gift was to support the political activities of the recipient, the gift is considered an expenditure on political activities. This means that a registered charity must now declare an amount that it gave to another qualified donee to conduct political activities as part of its own political activities and count this amount against the allowable limit.
A charity is not necessarily engaging in a political activity when it addresses a government body on legislative and policy matters. When a charity makes a representation (oral or written presentation or brief), whether by invitation or not, to an elected representative or public official, the activity is considered to be charitable provided that it:
• relates to an issue that is connected to the charity’s purposes;
• is well-reasoned; and
• does not contain information that the charity knows or ought to know is false, inaccurate, or misleading.
However, it is important to note that if making representations to elected or public officials is all the charity does, or is a substantial focus, the activity would no longer be subordinate to its charitable purposes and could indicate that the charity has an unstated political purpose.
For more information, see Policy Statement CPS-022, Political Activities.
C5(a) – Line 2400 – Tick yes if the charity carried out any political activities during the fiscal period, including making gifts to qualified donees that were intended by the donor for political activities. If you ticked yes at Line 2400, fill out Schedule 7 Political activities, Table 1 and Table 2.
C5(b) – Line 5030 – Enter the total amount gifted, spent, or both by the charity on these political activities.
C5(c) – Line 5031 – Of the amount at line 5030, enter the total amount of gifts made to qualified donees.
The charity should only report on gifts to other qualified donees that were intended for political activities. The charity is not responsible for tracking and reporting on how the funds were actually spent. Further, regardless of whether the funds were ultimately used for political activities, if a purpose of the gift was to fund political activity, it should be reported in line 5031.
C5(d) – Line 5032 – Enter the total amount received from outside Canada that was directed to be spent on political activities. If an amount is entered, fill out Schedule 7, Table 3, Funding from outside Canada for political activities.
This question only addresses the donor’s intent for the funds. The charity must report the total amount that the foreign donor directed it to spend on political activities, whether or not the amount was actually spent.”
There is a new “Line 4571 – Enter the charity’s total tax receipted amounts from all sources outside Canada (both government and non government).”
The description for Line 5030 dealing with political expenditures has been modified:
“Line 5030 – Enter the same amount that was reported at Q5(b). This includes the part of the amount on line 4950 that represents expenditures for political activities, inside or outside Canada., and the amount on line 5031 that was reported at Q5(c). For additional information on acceptable political activities, see Policy Statement CPS-022, Political Activities.”
The description for Schedule 7 is new:
“Schedule 7, Political activities
This schedule should only be filled out if the charity conducted political activities or received funds intended for political activities from foreign donors during the fiscal period.
For more information, on political activities, see Policy Statement CPS-022, Political Activities.
If you ticked yes at C5 (a) – Line 2400 fill out Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 – Describe the charity’s political activities including its gifts to qualified donees intended for political activities and explain how these relate to the charity’s purposes.
In this table, the charity should identify how the law, policy, or decision of government that the charity was trying to influence is related to its charitable purposes. The description should not include the means the charity used to try to retain, oppose, or change the law, policy or decision as the means should be identified in Table 2.
An example of a description is: ABC charity is established to promote health by giving medication to cancer patients in Canada. The charity wants the Canadian government to change the drug review process to establish an open border North American standard that would allow drugs currently only approved in the US to be readily sold in Canada.
Table 2 – Identify how the charity participated in, or carried out political activities (including funding political activities) during the fiscal period by reporting the types of resources used to carry out these activities. Tick all the boxes that apply.
The term “resource” is not defined in the Income Tax Act but we consider it to include the total of a charity’s financial assets, as well as everything the charity can use to further its purposes. This includes employees, volunteers, money, and property (such as buildings, equipment, land, and supplies).
ABC charity organized a rally on Parliament Hill to urge the government to change the drug review process. It used staff to organize and plan the rally and financial resources to rent buses to transport supporters to the rally. In this scenario, in the column marked “Rallies, demonstrations, or public meetings,” tick the boxes under “Staff” and “Financial.”
Charity XYZ’s only political activity was to gift bullhorns and money to ABC charity to support its rally on Parliament Hill. In this scenario, in the column marked “Gifts to qualified donees for political activities,” Charity XYZ ticks the boxes under “Financial” and “Property.”
Gifts from Foreign Donors
If you entered an amount on Line 5032, fill out Table 3, Funding from outside of Canada for political activities. This table captures amounts received from foreign donors that were intended to support political activities.
Table 3 – Enter the political activities that the funds were intended to support, the amount received from each country outside Canada, and the corresponding country code (using the country codes provided in schedule 2).
The charity must report the total amount that foreign donors directed it to spend on political activities rather than the amount it actually spent on these activities.
ABC charity received $5,000 from an organization in the United States and $10,000 from an individual in France with a direction from both that the funds are to be spent for the purpose of urging the government to change the drug review process to enable US approved drugs to be readily sold in Canada.
Political Activity Amount Code
Urge government to change the drug review process to enable US approved drugs to be readily sold in Canada. $5,000 US
Urge government to change the drug review process to enable US approved drugs to be readily sold in Canada. $10,000 FR”
The Guide does not include the program areas and field codes anymore. Presumably this is save space. Here is the list if one needs it:
“Program areas and field codes
Use the list below to choose up to three of the most significant areas that adequately describe the charity’s programs during the fiscal period. In the space provided on the Registered Charity Basic Information Sheet, enter the description and field code (for example, Nursing homes - F2), as well as the estimated percentage of total time and resources (human/financial) used in each area.
If the charity is funding qualified donees, use the “Other” category and write “funding qualified donees.” If you cannot find a suitable area, use the “Other” category and describe the program.
If the charity plans to engage in new activities, we recommend contacting the Charities Directorate to make sure the new activities are charitable.
Social services in Canada
A1 - Housing (seniors, low‑income persons, and those with disabilities)
A2 - Food or clothing banks, soup kitchens, hostels
A3 - Employment preparation and training
A4 - Legal assistance and services
A5 - Other services for low‑income persons
A6 - Seniors’ services
A7 - Services for the physically or mentally challenged
A8 - Children and youth services/housing
A9 - Services for Aboriginal people
A10 - Emergency shelter
A11 - Family and crisis counselling, financial counselling
A12 - Immigrant aid
A13 - Rehabilitation of offenders
A14 - Disaster relief
International aid and development
B1 - Social services (any listed under A1‑A13 above)
B2 - Infrastructure development
B3 - Agriculture programs
B4 - Medical services
B5 - Literacy/education/training programs
B6 - Disaster/war relief
Education and research
C1 - Scholarships, bursaries, awards
C2 - Support of schools and education (for example, parent‑teacher groups)
C3 - Universities and colleges
C4 - Public schools and boards
C5 - Independent schools and boards
C6 - Nursery programs/schools
C7 - Vocational and technical training (not delivered by universities/colleges/schools)
C8 - Literacy programs
C9 - Cultural programs, including heritage languages
C10 - Public education, other study programs
C11 - Research (scientific, social science, medical, environmental, etc.)
C12 - Learned societies (for example, Royal Astronomical Society of Canada)
C13 - Youth groups (for example, Girl Guides, cadets, 4‑H clubs, etc.)
Culture and arts
D1 - Museums, galleries, concert halls, etc.
D2 - Festivals, performing groups, musical ensembles
D3 - Arts schools, grants and awards for artists
D4 - Cultural centres and associations
D5 - Historical sites, heritage societies
E1 - Places of worship, congregations, parishes, dioceses, fabriques, etc.
E2 - Missionary organizations, evangelism
E3 - Religious publishing and broadcasting
E4 - Seminaries and other religious colleges
E5 - Social outreach, religious fellowship, and auxiliary organizations
F1 - Hospitals
F2 - Nursing homes
F3 - Clinics
F4 - Services for the sick
F5 - Mental‑health services and support groups
F6 - Addiction services and support groups
F7 - Other mutual‑support groups (for example, cancer patients)
F8 - Promotion and protection of health, including first‑aid and information services
F9 - Specialized health organizations, focusing on specific diseases/conditions
G1 - Nature, habitat conservation groups
G2 - Preservation of species, wildlife protection
G3 - General environmental protection, recycling sevices
Other community benefits
H1 - Agricultural and horticultural societies
H2 - Welfare of domestic animals
H3 - Parks, botanical gardens, zoos, aquariums, etc.
H4 - Community recreation facilities, trails, etc.
H5 - Community halls
H6 - Libraries
H7 - Cemeteries
H8 - Summer camps
H9 - Day care/after‑school care
H10 - Crime prevention, public safety, preservation of law and order
H11 - Ambulance, fire, rescue, and other emergency services
H12 - Human rights
H13 – Mediation services
H14 - Consumer protection
H15 - Support and services for charitable sector
I1 - Write a description if this category applies”
Afovia v. The Queen - recent TCC case confirms that mandatory elements of receipt are mandatory
In a recent Tax Court of Canada case Afovia v. the Queen, Paris J. decided that CRA can revoke a charity for issuing official donation receipts that do not have all the mandatory elements on them. As well, CRA can deny the credit to the taxpayer if the receipt does not have all the mandatory elements. It is very important that Canadian charities that issue tax receipts are aware of the rules and follow them. Here is a 145 page “Receipting Kit” that may be of assistance. http://bit.ly/A2jbA2
Here are excerpts of the Afovia decision:
MAWUEWO K.J. AFOVIA,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
__________________________________________________________________Appeal heard on common evidence with the appeals of
Edoh Wilson (2011-1675(IT)I),
Chantal Afovia (2011-1676(IT)I),
Shama Bope (2011-1722(IT)I) and
Biringanine Kayeye (2011-3496(IT)I)
on June 13, 2012, at Hamilton, Ontario.
Before: The Honourable Justice B. Paris
For the appellant:
The appellant himself
Counsel for the respondent:
The appeal from the reassessment made under the Income Tax Act in respect of the 2007 taxation year is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 The issue in these appeals is whether each of the appellants is entitled to the charitable gift tax credits claimed in his or her 2007 taxation year for alleged cash donations made to Parole de Grace London (PDGL). Mr. Bope is also appealing the reassessment of his 2008 taxation year on the same issue.
 The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) reassessed each of the appellants on the basis that he or she did not make any gifts to PDGL in 2007 (and 2008, in the case of Mr. Bope). The Minister also concluded, in the alternative, that the receipts issued by PDGL to the appellants did not contain all of the information that is required to be included in a charitable receipt pursuant to the Income Tax Regulations (the Regulations).
 For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the receipts provided by PDGL do not contain all of the information required by the Regulations, and for this reason alone, the appeals must be dismissed. I have also concluded that, even if the receipts had conformed to the Regulations, the appellants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they made the donations in issue.
 Subsection 118.1(3) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) allows a deduction from tax payable for gifts made to a registered charity. Paragraph 118.1(2)(a) provides that the making of the gift must be proven by filing a receipt containing prescribed information. The provision reads:
(2) A gift shall not be included in the total charitable gifts, total Crown gifts, total cultural gifts or total ecological gifts of an individual unless the making of the gift is proven by filing with the Minister
(a) a receipt for the gift that contains prescribed information;
 The prescribed information required to be included in an official charitable receipt is listed in subsection 3501(1) of the Regulations which states:
(1) Every official receipt issued by a registered organization shall contain a statement that it is an official receipt for income tax purposes and shall show clearly in such a manner that it cannot readily be altered,
(a) the name and address in Canada of the organization as recorded with the Minister;
(b) the registration number assigned by the Minister to the organization;
(c) the serial number of the receipt;
(d) the place or locality where the receipt was issued;
(e) where the donation is a cash donation, the day on which or the year during which the donation was received;
(e.1) where the donation is a gift of property other than cash
(i) the day on which the donation was received,
(ii) a brief description of the property, and
(iii) the name and address of the appraiser of the property if an appraisal is done;
(f) the day on which the receipt was issued where that day differs from the day referred to in paragraph (e) or (e.1);
(g) the name and address of the donor including, in the case of an individual, his first name and initial;
(h) the amount that is
(i) the amount of a cash donation, or
(ii) where the donation is a gift of property other than cash, the amount that is the fair market value of the property at the time that the gift was made;
(i) the signature, as provided in subsection (2) or (3), of a responsible individual who has been authorized by the organization to acknowledge donations; and
(j) the name and Internet website of the Canada Revenue Agency.
 I will deal firstly with the question of whether the receipts issued by PDGL to the appellants met with the requirements of the Act and Regulations.
 Each of the appellants filed a receipt from PDGL with his or her 2007 tax return. The receipts were dated January 21, 2008. Mr. Bope filed a receipt from PDGL with his 2008 tax return as well. It, too, was dated January 21, 2008. None of those receipts showed a serial number or the name and Internet website of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), as required by paragraphs 3501(1)(c) and (j) of the Regulations.
 After the appellants were told by the CRA auditor that the receipts did not contain all of the required information, PDGL issued them new receipts. All of the new receipts except Mr. Wilson’s were then given to the CRA, presumably during the objection process. The new receipts were identical to the original receipts in terms of the information they contained, except that they also gave a breakdown of the amounts donated. For example, the receipt for Mr. Kayeye showed that he donated $1,250.00 in January 2007 and $1,000.00 in each of the months of March, May, July, August, October and December 2007.
 The question that must be decided by this Court is whether it is mandatory that a charitable donation receipt contain all of the information listed in subsection 3501(1) of the Regulations, including a serial number and the name and Internet website of the Canada Revenue Agency. On the basis of the clear wording of that provision, I find that all of the information listed there is mandatory. The material portion of the section states that “every official receipt issued by a registered organization . . . shall show clearly in such a manner that it cannot be readily altered . . .” the information listed in paragraphs (a) to (j). (Emphasis added.)
 The Supreme Court of Canada held in Re Manitoba Language Rights that the word “shall” in a statute is to be construed imperatively “unless such an interpretation . . . would be utterly inconsistent with the context in which it has been used and would render the section irrational or meaningless.”
 Section 11 of the Interpretation Act provides that “[t]he expression ‘shall’ is to be construed as imperative and the expression ‘may’ as permissive.” According to section 3 of the Interpretation Act, section 11 applies to every enactment unless a contrary intention appears.
 The appellants did not suggest and I am unable to conclude that giving the word “shall” in section 3501 of the Regulations an imperative meaning would lead to an unreasonable outcome. Parliament may have chosen to include the requirement for a serial number on charitable receipts to facilitate audits of charitable donations, in other words by ensuring that records of donations are kept in an orderly fashion; the inclusion of the CRA website address permits a donor to verify whether the charity is registered and whether the donation is eligible for the charitable donation tax credit. I also find that an imperative construction is consistent with the context. For example, the requirement for serial numbers on receipts is also referred to in subsections 3501(1.1), (3) and (4) and the requirement for the CRA website address is repeated in subsection 3501(1.1) of the Regulations. I therefore find that the information listed in subsection 3501(1) of the Regulations is mandatory for official charitable receipts.
 Since none of the receipts provided to the appellants by PDGL contain all of the prescribed information, they do not meet the requirements of subsection 118.1(2) of the Act and, for this reason, the appellants’ claims for charitable gift credits cannot succeed.
 The fact that the appellants were unaware of what information was required on a charitable receipt cannot relieve them of the obligation to support their claim for the charitable donation tax credits with official receipts that contain the prescribed information. This Court is bound by subsection 118.1(2) of the Act.
Did the appellants make the donations?
 PDGL was registered as a charity under the Act in June 2006 and was run by Tshibola Katalayi. In its application for charitable status, PDGL listed its activities as the operation of a house of worship in Canada, the operation of programs in Canada to assist immigrants, and the operation of missions and programs in Africa to assist orphans and female victims of torture in war. PDGL’s church was in London, Ontario.
 Sherry Head, a CRA auditor, conducted an audit of PDGL in early 2010. She testified that she was unable to confirm that cash donations were in fact received by it. The only records provided by PDGL in the audit were some Excel spreadsheets for 2007 and 2008 that listed donations. Ms. Head testified that there was no indication that any donations had been deposited in PDGL’s bank account, and there were no records to show how the alleged donations might have been spent.
 Ms. Head issued a revocation letter to the organization advising that the Minister intended to revoke its charitable status as a result of its failure to maintain adequate books and records and because she had been unable to verify that it had been established for charitable purposes. No response to this letter was received, and PDGL’s charitable status was revoked on October 9, 2010.
 Mr. Kayeye initially testified that he had become a member of the PDGL congregation in 2006. Later, in cross-examination, he said that he was not a member of the Church. He admitted that he had never attended the PDGL church and was a member of the Royal City Church in Guelph, but he testified that he had simply wanted to help PDGL with its work in the Congo and assisting immigrants in London and Toronto. He himself is Congolese.
 Mr. Kayeye stated that he had made cash donations directly to Mr. Katalayi in 2007. PDGL gave Mr. Kayeye a written receipt dated January 21, 2008, showing that he had donated $7,250 during the 2007 calendar year. On December 10, 2010, PDGL issued him another receipt for 2007 after the CRA auditor took the position that the first receipt did not contain all of the required information.
 Mr. Kayeye also testified that he had made cash donations totalling $5,700 to PDGL in 2006, and that after review, his claim for a tax credit in respect of those donations had been allowed by the Minister. He produced a letter dated December 2, 2008, from the CRA advising that his claim for the charitable donation tax credit in 2006 was being allowed.
 Mr. Kayeye’s total income was $50,179.01 in 2007. At the time, he was married and had six children. His wife and children were living in a refugee camp in South Africa at the time. They were unable to come to Canada because Mr. Kayeye was not yet a permanent resident.
 In cross-examination, Mr. Kayeye admitted that he was a member of Royal City Church in Guelph in 2007 and donated $130 to it in that year.
Mr. Kayeye’s position
 Mr. Kayeye submits that he made cash donations to PDGL and that it was common for donations to be made in cash. He said that he had provided bank records to the CRA as proof of his 2006 and 2007 donations and, while his claim was allowed for 2006, it was rejected for 2007. He said that he knew that PDGL did charitable work in Africa and that he wanted to contribute. He also added that as a newcomer to Canada he was not familiar with the requirements for charitable receipts.
 As I indicated at the outset of these reasons, Mr. Kayeye has the onus to prove that he made the alleged donations to PDGL in 2007. The standard of proof to be applied is on a balance of probabilities. This means that he must show that it is more probable than not that he made the donations in issue.
 I have several concerns with respect to Mr. Kayeye’s testimony.
 Firstly, I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Kayeye made continuous cash donations directly to Mr. Katalayi when Mr. Katalayi’s church was in London. Mr. Kayeye said he lived in Guelph and never attended PDGL’s church in London. It was not explained where or how Mr. Kayeye met Mr. Katalayi in order to make the supposed donations.
 Secondly, no evidence was adduced to show that Mr. Kayeye had a history of making large donations to any charitable organization other than PDGL. In fact, the only other donation that he seems to have made was for $130 to the church he attended in Guelph. In light of the modest amount of this donation to his own church and the fact that he never attended PDGL’s church in London, I find it implausible that he would have made much more substantial donations to PDGL.
 Finally, while Mr. Kayeye asserted that he had provided bank records to the CRA for both years, no such records were presented at the hearing. I draw a negative inference from the appellant’s failure to produce those documents, as no reasonable explanation for this failure was given. I conclude that those records would not have tended to corroborate his testimony that he made the donations. Given the substantial cash amounts that Mr. Kayeye said he had donated to PDGL, I would have expected there to be some records available to show where he obtained this cash.
 While each of these factors is not in itself determinative, when taken together, they tend to show that it is not likely that Mr. Kayeye in fact made the donations he claims to have made.
 Finally, the fact that the Minister allegedly allowed Mr. Kayeye a credit for donations he supposedly made in 2006 is irrelevant. In the words of Justice Sarchuk at paragraph 13 of Schumaker v. The Queen:
There is a substantial body of case law in which the courts have consistently held that a concession made in one year in the absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary does not preclude the Minister from taking a different view in a later year. As was stated in Admiral Investment Ltd., v. the Minister of National Revenue,  and has been repeated any number of times since then, an assessment is conclusive as between the parties only in relation to the assessment for the year in which it is made. in [sic] Gilbert v. the Minister of National Revenue,  (1991) 2 C.T.C. 2319. [sic] Judge Rip observed:
The treatment for tax purposes of expenses claimed in earlier years is not before me and I am not bound by how the respondent may have treated similar claims in previous years. After all, the respondent is not the arbiter of what is right or wrong in tax law.
Quite simply this means that if the Minister inadvertently or incorrectly allowed certain amounts as a deduction in prior years, that is not binding on this Court. Rather, it is necessary for the Court to consider the facts before it for the particular taxation year under appeal and on that basis, determine whether a particular disallowance or allowance of a particular item comes within the scope of a particular section. If it does, a taxpayer may be entitled to a deduction. If it does not, he is not so entitled.
 Mr. Afovia is a teacher with the Kitchener-Waterloo Bilingual School, and his spouse, Ms. Afovia, is employed as an advisor with Sun Life Insurance. Both held these positions in 2007. They have two children, aged 9 and 16. Mr. Afovia is of Togolese origin and lived in Germany prior to coming to Canada in 2003. Ms. Afovia is of Congolese origin.
 Mr. Afovia testified that when he lived in Germany he had helped raise money and collect goods that were sent to Africa. He said that when he came to Canada, he wanted to continue to support charitable work in Africa, and looked for an organization similar to the one he had worked with in Germany. Mr. Katalayi, whom he met at a fundraiser, told him that PDGL provided assistance to female victims of war and abandoned children in Africa, and to African immigrants arriving in Canada. Mr. Afovia told his spouse about PDGL and they said they decided to help with its work by making donations. Mr. Afovia testified that Mr. Katalayi requested that the donations be made in cash, to avoid problems with NSF cheques. Ms. Afovia said that they gave cash to Mr. Katayali, but neither Mr. nor Ms. Afovia provided details of when or where this happened. Mr. Afovia testified that they were not members of PDGL’s church, which was an hour’s drive from their home in Kitchener.
 Mr. Afovia’s total income shown on his tax return for 2007 was $41,279.32. Ms. Afovia’s total income 2007 was $37,363.52. Each had their earnings deposited directly into their bank accounts by their employers.
 The Afovias produced two receipts from PDGL. The first was dated January 21, 2008, and set out that they had donated $8,000 to Parole de Grace in 2007. This receipt was filed with their tax returns. A second receipt, dated August 1, 2010, showed that PDGL had received the following donations from the Afovias in 2007:
 The Afovias produced no other proof that the payments were made. When asked about their bank records for the period, Mr. Afovia stated that he did not wish to produce them. Ms. Afovia said that at the audit stage the CRA had sent them a letter which stated that bank records showing cash withdrawals would be insufficient proof that the donations had been made. She supposed therefore that the Court would not accept them as proof either.
The Afovias’ position
 The Afovias submitted that the receipts they received from PDGL were proof of their donations, and that if the receipts were incomplete it was the fault of PDGL. They said that when they became aware of the deficiencies in the receipt, they took steps to obtain a second one in order to comply with the requirements of the Regulations. They argued that they had the means to make the donations, even if the amounts were relatively large. Both said that they were motivated to give by the great difficulties faced by people in their home countries and that this was their way of trying to help.
 As in the case of Mr. Kayeye, the only proof offered by the Afovias that they had made the donations in issue was their testimony and the receipts issued by PDGL.
 My comments in Mr. Kayeye’s case with respect to bank records are equally applicable here. Since the only source of income for each of them was their employment, and since their earnings went directly into their accounts, they would have had to withdraw the cash for the gifts to PDGL from their accounts. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems likely to me that those bank records would have contained information either confirming or contradicting their testimony. I draw the inference from the Afovias’ failure to produce those records that they would not have supported their claim that they made the donations in issue.
 I also have difficulty accepting that Ms. Afovia chose not to bring her bank records because she was told during the audit that the CRA would not accept them as proof. Ms. Afovia, and all of the appellants for that matter, appeared quite clearly to understand that the correctness of the auditor’s conclusions was at issue in this appeal, and they did not have any difficulty challenging those conclusions before me. Therefore it seems unlikely that Ms. Afovia would accept the auditor’s conclusion regarding what evidence would be acceptable or not to prove that the donations were made.
 I also find the explanation given by Mr. Afovia for making the gifts in cash to be implausible. If Mr. Katalayi were concerned about cheques bouncing, it would have been possible to make payments by money order or bank draft, in order to have a record of the payments, and in order to be able to transmit those payments without having to meet personally with Mr. Katalayi each time. It also strikes me as odd that Mr. Katalayi would not have given a receipt and that the Afovias would not have requested one each time a donation was supposedly made, given that those donations were for either $1,000 or $1,500 each time. It does not make sense to me that neither the Afovias nor PDGL would keep track of these donations in an organized and formal fashion. These alleged donations represented what the Afovias each admitted were significant amounts for them, which makes the lack of contemporaneous receipts puzzling.
 A further factor which leads me to reject the testimony of the Afovias is the absence of any evidence that would suggest that they had a history of making financial contributions to charitable causes either before or after 2007.
 For these reasons, I find that the Afovias have failed to prove that they made the donations they claim to have made to PDGL.
 Mr. Wilson’s evidence was very brief. He testified that he started attending PDGL church in London in early 2005. He said that every three months he put $250 cash in an envelope which he gave directly to Mr. Katalayi. He withdrew the cash at bank machines. The receipt from PDGL that he filed with his 2007 tax return stated that he had donated $1,500 in that year.
 In 2007, his total income was $35,296.73. He was married with one child, and lived in North York, about a two-hour drive to London. He testified that he had gone to the PDGL church several times since 2005, and a couple of times in 2007.
Mr. Wilson’s position
 Mr. Wilson did not present any argument in favour of his position.
 The evidence presented by Mr. Wilson falls short of showing that he made the donations to PDGL that he claimed to have made. Once again, the only support for his position is his own testimony and the PDGL receipt. Overall, I find Mr. Wilson’s testimony vague and unreliable. The unnamed friend who allegedly drove him from North York to London (a two-hour drive) to attend church was not called as a witness to corroborate his evidence, and, as in the other cases, no bank records were produced.
 Mr. Wilson’s testimony concerning the making of the donations was inconsistent. In Court, he said he gave $250 to Mr. Katalayi every three months. This would have amounted to $1,000.00 for the year. However, in a letter he sent to the CRA, he said he gave $250 in January, March, May, August, October and December for a total of $1,500. In that letter he also said that some of the money for the donations came from his bank account and some came from “various sources.” At the hearing he said it all came from his bank account.
 Mr. Wilson also testified that had given $250 to Mr. Katalayi every three months from when he started attending PDGL, supposedly in 2005. However, there was nothing to show that he had claimed a tax credit for donations to PDGL in 2005 or 2006, nor was there evidence to show that he had made donations to any other charitable organization either before or after 2007. I also note that PDGL was only registered as a charity in 2006. The evidence did not disclose whether it had been active prior to 2006.
 Mr. Bope is married and has one child. He and his family reside in Hamilton and have lived there since at least 2006. Mr. Bope said that, starting in 2006, his sister would take him to the PDGL church in London from time to time. The trip to London took between two and two and a half hours each way. When he attended PDGL church, he said he would give cash directly to Mr. Katalayi. On those Sundays that he worked, he said he would put cash in an envelope for his sister to take to give to PDGL. He said his sister went almost every Sunday. He understood that his donations were used to help the poor and to provide schooling for children in Africa.
 Mr. Bope said he withdrew the cash used to make the donations from his line of credit. He produced a printout of all transactions on his line of credit account in 2007 and 2008 which showed all of the cash withdrawals from the account. Mr. Bope admitted, though, that he was unable to tell what part of any of the withdrawals was used for the donations. He also conceded that he used some unspecified portion of the cash that was withdrawn for personal purposes and said that he had spent a lot of it on parties.
 His total income was $38,290.41 in 2007 and $42,686.77 in 2008. He and his wife owned a rental property, but it produced losses in 2007 and 2008.
 The receipts he received from PDGL and which he filed with his returns showed that he had donated $4,600.00 in 2007 and $5,600.00 in 2008. Both receipts were dated January 21, 2008. Mr. Bope said that he had not noticed the identical date on the two receipts and that he could not explain it.
Mr. Bope’s submissions
 Mr. Bope insisted in his argument that he had the means to make the donations and that the bank records were proof that he had made them.
 In my view, the bank records filed by Mr. Bope are inconclusive as to whether any amounts were withdrawn to fund donations to PDGL. There are no regular, consistent withdrawals that one might expect if, as Mr. Bope testified, he made cash donations almost every week. Instead, the withdrawals are sporadic, and vary in amount from $20 to $1,200. I also agree with counsel for the respondent that the fact that all of these withdrawals were borrowed from Mr. Bope’s line of credit makes it less likely that the amounts were used to make donations. Although Mr. Bope said he had the means to make the donations, the evidence showed that he owed money on his line of credit throughout the years in issue.
 Furthermore, Mr. Bope gave no reason for making donations in cash, and did not appear to have kept track of them himself. No particulars of dates and amounts of donations were given. As I indicated in the case of the Afovias, I would have expected there to be more attention paid to recording these donations on an ongoing basis given the relatively large sums involved.
 I also draw a negative inference from the failure of Mr. Bope to call his sister and his spouse to confirm his attendance at PDGL’s church in London or to confirm that they saw him make any donations. I would also add that I find it highly unlikely that he would have traveled five hours each Sunday to attend the PDGL church.
 Finally, there was no evidence that Mr. Bope made gifts or donations to any other charity since his arrival in Canada in 2000.
 Again, none of these factors alone is determinative, but, taken collectively, they tend to show the truth about the donations in issue.
 The appeals are dismissed.
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 8th day of November 2012.
For the full decision see: Afovia v. the Queen.